And I ramble about names...
(In a quite heteronormative, monogamy oriented light, I admit. Stems mostly from reading this thread mostly. Also, some good commentary over here.)
Yes, carrying the names we are given at birth means--quite often (in the US at least)--that we're carrying our father's last name.
But that goes for both men and women.
If my last name is "my father's last name," then so too is my male partner's last name "his father's."
But for some reason, these last names seem to stick to baby boys and not baby girls. These last names become his as he grows up. He is John Jones. There's no denying.
These last names don't become her's. She's just Samantha Jones...until she finds a husband. Her name is transient. (It's just on loan from her father, you see.) We ask her "are you going to change your name?" before she marries. Someone may say to her, without any announcement, "Congratulations Mrs. Hisname Hisname/Mrs. Hername Hisname" after she marries.
Would we presume to ask these questions or make these statements, offhanded as we do, to a man?
SarahMC over at Harpyness breaks out some responses to the most common name change arguments--from "family unity" to "it's just a name": YOUR LAST NAME HERE! for only two months’ salary.
Even women my age (27) face not only the expectation that they will take their husbands’ names, but serious pressure. I don’t know if this pressure is one of the last cries of social conservatism as it dies out, but I hope that’s the case. It’s troubling either way, and I’m sure it’s scary to deal with personally. So I thought I’d list rebuttals to some common “arguments” in favor of name-changing. There is no argument for this tradition (woman taking man’s name) that is not sexist. The protests you’ll hear after you poke holes in the reasoning is proof of that.
[....]
It’s just a name! Why is it that important to keep yours?
If it were just a name, men (and their families, and friends, and your family and friends…) would not have a problem with women who are unwilling to change theirs. If it were just a name, men would give up their own names and assume their wives’. If it were just a name, why bother with any of this name changing business at all? It’s not “just a name,” to those who fight patriarchy or those who parrot the party line.
I come to this conclusion, most of the time: At the end of the day, you have to live with yourself.
You want to be comfortable. You want to be happy.
And you should make the choices that will give you those things.
In an ideal world, our personal choices wouldn't reflect a damned thing on or about society at large.
We don't live in that world.
We live in a world skewed toward making certain choices sound more acceptable, more sensible, more "correct." (The fact that people look aghast [or sometimes downright insulted] at me or Matt when we mention we don't want children, or that he's had a vasectomy, is proof enough of that.)
On a societal level, sometimes (maybe a lot of times) the choices that are best for us as an individual, may not be ideal for a progressive movement.
But you're not a movement.
You can't be an activist in every single thing that you do. It's just not humanly possible.
But. I think you can admit to yourself when you're participating in something that you might not be participating in if things were different. Or that cultural norms influence whether you like or dislike a certain thing. And that sometimes those things you do, or those things you like, while on an individual level make you happy and satisfied, can and still do color a larger perspective.
And that sometimes we miss a small chance to change the world. (Because we have to live in it.)
And then accept it.
And move forward.
You can control your actions, after all. But you can't control how they'll be interpreted.
Yes, carrying the names we are given at birth means--quite often (in the US at least)--that we're carrying our father's last name.
But that goes for both men and women.
If my last name is "my father's last name," then so too is my male partner's last name "his father's."
But for some reason, these last names seem to stick to baby boys and not baby girls. These last names become his as he grows up. He is John Jones. There's no denying.
These last names don't become her's. She's just Samantha Jones...until she finds a husband. Her name is transient. (It's just on loan from her father, you see.) We ask her "are you going to change your name?" before she marries. Someone may say to her, without any announcement, "Congratulations Mrs. Hisname Hisname/Mrs. Hername Hisname" after she marries.
Would we presume to ask these questions or make these statements, offhanded as we do, to a man?
SarahMC over at Harpyness breaks out some responses to the most common name change arguments--from "family unity" to "it's just a name": YOUR LAST NAME HERE! for only two months’ salary.
Even women my age (27) face not only the expectation that they will take their husbands’ names, but serious pressure. I don’t know if this pressure is one of the last cries of social conservatism as it dies out, but I hope that’s the case. It’s troubling either way, and I’m sure it’s scary to deal with personally. So I thought I’d list rebuttals to some common “arguments” in favor of name-changing. There is no argument for this tradition (woman taking man’s name) that is not sexist. The protests you’ll hear after you poke holes in the reasoning is proof of that.
[....]
It’s just a name! Why is it that important to keep yours?
If it were just a name, men (and their families, and friends, and your family and friends…) would not have a problem with women who are unwilling to change theirs. If it were just a name, men would give up their own names and assume their wives’. If it were just a name, why bother with any of this name changing business at all? It’s not “just a name,” to those who fight patriarchy or those who parrot the party line.
I come to this conclusion, most of the time: At the end of the day, you have to live with yourself.
You want to be comfortable. You want to be happy.
And you should make the choices that will give you those things.
In an ideal world, our personal choices wouldn't reflect a damned thing on or about society at large.
We don't live in that world.
We live in a world skewed toward making certain choices sound more acceptable, more sensible, more "correct." (The fact that people look aghast [or sometimes downright insulted] at me or Matt when we mention we don't want children, or that he's had a vasectomy, is proof enough of that.)
On a societal level, sometimes (maybe a lot of times) the choices that are best for us as an individual, may not be ideal for a progressive movement.
But you're not a movement.
You can't be an activist in every single thing that you do. It's just not humanly possible.
But. I think you can admit to yourself when you're participating in something that you might not be participating in if things were different. Or that cultural norms influence whether you like or dislike a certain thing. And that sometimes those things you do, or those things you like, while on an individual level make you happy and satisfied, can and still do color a larger perspective.
And that sometimes we miss a small chance to change the world. (Because we have to live in it.)
And then accept it.
And move forward.
You can control your actions, after all. But you can't control how they'll be interpreted.